Talk:Tag:historic=tree shrine

Tree shines are they a specific type of wayside shrine ?

Could be:

• historic=wayside_shrine
• wayside_shrine=tree

--Pyrog (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I use to map them as historic=wayside_shrine + natural=tree. No need for new tags like historic=tree_shrine or wayside_shrine=tree. --Fkv (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

fine :-)

I see also that geschichtskarten use the same icon for historic=tree_shrine and historic=wayside_shrine

Could we contact all the (last) users of theses 85 objects to change theses keys and to change the wiki ?

There is only 23 users (and only 9 with 2 or more objects).

--Pyrog (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I already changed the wiki on 2014-07-31, after contacting TBKMrt and discussing it in the tagging mailing list. If you think that other users should be contacted as well, go ahead. --Fkv (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not tag a wayside_cross as historic=wayside_shrine and man_made=cross so we can get rid of the wayside_cross tag?

To answer your question: In my opinion a tree shrine is something similar, but not the same as a wayside shrine (like a wayside cross is similar but is not a wayside shrine). In fkv's opinion it isn't.

--TBKMrt (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right. IMO, a tree_shrine is actually a shrine mounted at a tree. It's only the mounting point that differs. This is a candidate for a subtag, not a new main tag. --Fkv (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are differences and it is not just a "shrine mounted at a tree" where "only the mounting point that differs", but I know that you deny the difference and therefore every further discussion with you on that is wasted time because it leads to the same thing we are right now. --TBKMrt (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so what is the crucial difference, that it has to be a separate value, not a subtag? Aceman444 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the combination of tree and wayside shrine on the same object is not working well and against basic mapping rules in OSM. See below. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How to classify wayside statues of Virgin ?

Move to Talk:Tag:historic=wayside_shrine

2020-12-02 edit

First it was less than 82, then less than 150 and now it's less than 180. The tag is used in several countries on three out of five continets. All of that even though it was tried to stamp it down. The numbers are growing but it's never enough for Mateusz Konieczny. What is the limit? This tag is used less than 2'000 times, consider taking it with a grain of salt! I don't think so, buster! There are wiki entries of tags with a fraction of this number!
Additionally: This tag has an item on wikidata where it says "OpenStreetMap tag or key: Tag:historic=tree_shrine".
Not enough of that, Mateusz Konieczny seems to be the Trump of OSM and decides which tag "has some real support" and which not. With such toxic behaviour you can go fishin' somewhere else buddy! --TBKMrt (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There are 408 combinations of historic=wayside_cross/shrine with natural=tree (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10LD), and you still owe us an explanation why a new tag is needed when the combination of existing tags provides more exact information.

Yes, there is some usage of tree shrine, but to me it also seems as if this tag is orthogonal to the systematics that we have already established, specifically thinking about historic=wayside_shrine and support=* because the "tree shrines" are also "wayside shrines" at the same time, and it does not look like a healthy approach to tag the same kind of feature with different main tags / categories according to the kind of mounting support.

By the way, to put the usage in context, in the usage range for historic values with similar numbers there are other tags like historic=protected_building (265 uses, established tag is heritage=*), historic=mule_path (232 uses), historic=castle_wall (223 uses), historic=No (214 uses, not to confuse with historic=no which has 8331 uses), historic=country_marker (202), historic=razed:watermill (212 uses), historic=disused (159 uses), historic=abandoned (136 uses), etc. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"There are wiki entries of tags with a fraction of this number!" - and? This entry also has wiki page. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Additionally: This tag has an item on wikidata where it says "OpenStreetMap tag or key: Tag:historic=tree_shrine"." - Wikidata entry has no importance whatsoever and does not decide about anything at all in OSM tagging Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fundamental problem is that it is using new tag value instead of using Tag:historic=wayside_shrine with over 80 000 uses. In the same way historic=shrine_made_of_wood or historic=shrine_depicting_saint or historic=lit_wayside_shrine or historic=wayside_shrine_on_heritage_list would be problematic. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the combination of natural=tree and historic=tree_shrine on the same object should be avoided, because it mixes a tree with a wayside shrine on the same object, which is against the basic rule One_feature,_one_OSM_element. The page currently encourages mappers to create these combined objects by suggesting the combination of leaf_type=* for tree shrines. I will remove this suggestion if no arguments are given in the mean time why it should be kept. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In this case it seems a single object to me (tree with shrine attached to it), but two separate nodes with shrine using support=tree is also viable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's common practice to map two closely connected features (e.g. a building and a shop, a peak and a survey_point, a bench and a viewpoint) as one unless there is a conflict (e.g. a different name or start_date). You can always do micromapping, but in case of a conflict you need to. --Fkv (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be common practise for some mappers, but it clearly is against the rules (one object one element) and it has always the potential for confusion, so it is not something we should actively encourage. I would see it in this case as 2 objects, a tree, with a height, a diameter, a start date, a species, etc. and a wayside shrine with a religion, a height, a start date, etc. This is in no way comparable to a peak which can also be used as survey point. I would also discourage merging buildings and building occupants, see the current cases as temporary transitional tagging, but prefer distinct objects over merged ones. --Dieterdreist (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Not enough of that, Mateusz Konieczny seems to be the Trump of OSM" - I request you to stop insults. Especially when you describe "This tag is not used a lot (...) it should be taken with a grain of salt" as "degrading hatespeach". Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBKMrt refers to a growing number of tree_shrine instances, but this is how he makes it grow: He deletes historic=wayside_shrine/cross nodes and replaces them with tree_shrine nodes, as in 118624278 (deleted nodes: 2087612640 2087612640 1537535819 1537535819). --Fkv (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no sources quoted on the changesets nor the individual objects, generic autogenerated changeset descriptions... They do not seem to have any value for tagging discussions. Aceman444 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And to complete listing, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9587382117/history replaced it. Retagging objects is not crime and maybe be a valid edit, but edit should mention it and retagging should not result in loss of info - unlike it happened here, info that it was specifically cross was lost. Also "Gelber Herrgott" was removed for unspecified reason. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, in case of updating one of growing numbers - updating other numbers (that are growing a bit faster!) would be nice, rather than updating one and leaving other with outdated info. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:historic%3Dtree_shrine&diff=2468607&oldid=2467611 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)